pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 7, 2016 11:15:27 GMT -5
I fail to see how anything you just said makes my assessment wrong. This system makes certain voters count more than others. A voter in Pennsylvania counts many times more than any voter in California who votes for a candidate after the state has already decided a winner. Any Hillary Clinton voter who voted in California beyond the number of voters needed to beat the Donald Trump voters in California wasted their vote. The point of the Electoral College is not to deny certain people their right to vote. That is a potential by-product of it, not its purpose. Its purpose is to prevent a majority of the people from electing someone who is not qualified for the office by creating a second layer of safety net against that possibility. The point isn't to let literally a minority of overall voters decide who wins without the safety net applying to that decision as well. If it is, the founding fathers are dumber than I thought. Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as tyranny of the majority. Considering the purpose is to deny the office to an unqualified populist, and considering that is what just fu cking happened, if the electoral college cannot change their votes they have no reason to exist. The highlighted text might be the dumbest thing I've read in regards to a popular vs electoral vote argument. No offense. Please explain this again. Based on your reasoning, all voters, on every matter possible, stop mattering after the point where they stop mattering (a one vote lead). But of course, there is no way to know when that point will be, or if it will ever be, until voting is over. Maybe you need to stop arguing against the electoral college and start arguing for the invention of a time machine. My point is we're telling people that their votes don't count because the candidate they voted for already won in their state. I'm not telling people not to vote, I'm arguing that that is stupid. Literally, had these people been geographically distributed differently the election would have had a different outcome. And then I go on to say that, if we cannot keep an unqualified demagogue who drums up support in small states by making promises he can't begin to keep, throwing specific minority groups under the bus and telling his supporters he'll remove constitutional rights from people who do not share their fervent nationalism, why do we even have an electoral college? Is this not the reason for its existence? Does it literally exist only to allow a minority of voters to overcome a majority through better geographic distribution?
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Dec 8, 2016 5:56:07 GMT -5
"Literally, had these people been geographically distributed differently the election would have had a different outcome."
On the local level this is called gerrymandering. Hard to do with states lol. I guess if democrats want to win more they should take some hardcore Cali voters and
but that's dumb.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Dec 8, 2016 6:57:10 GMT -5
All of these "what if" discussions (i.e. what if popular vote? what if different geography? what if different electorates?) are really quite silly, and impossible to determine the outcome of. If the system were any different, then so would be the campaigns, and more importantly the voter turnout.
As we just saw, polling is a joke. We don't have the slightest clue who would have won an actual popular vote.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 8, 2016 10:06:34 GMT -5
On the local level this is called gerrymandering.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Dec 8, 2016 10:09:22 GMT -5
Will 's right... and to quote one of my favorite movie characters: I don't want to hear about no motherf$$kin' if's
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Dec 8, 2016 13:09:52 GMT -5
And a technical shelf life of 23 more days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 16:36:45 GMT -5
Inb4 Hitler was also awarded Person of the Year.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 8, 2016 18:22:37 GMT -5
Well it's hard to argue anyone else as being more influential this year.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Dec 8, 2016 19:16:54 GMT -5
On the local level this is called gerrymandering. but I only used it once... and I totally know what it means lol.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 9, 2016 3:41:09 GMT -5
but I only used it once... and I totally know what it means lol. It was more about the second part of the quote, because what Pach was talking about, and what you were describing is not gerrymandering.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Dec 9, 2016 13:49:21 GMT -5
"Literally, had these people been geographically distributed differently the election would have had a different outcome."
uh yeah. Gerrymandering is manipulating political boundries for a desired outcome at the local level. One of the uses of gerrymandering is to waste as many opposing votes as possible. You "distribute" the people by adjusting boundaries.
That isn't possible on the national level because...ya know... state borders. Since you can't change the borders... to get a similar strategy to work you would first have to actually physically move the people (which is why I used the spongebob meme) lol.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 11, 2016 8:21:00 GMT -5
uh yeah. Gerrymandering is manipulating political boundries for a desired outcome at the local level. One of the uses of gerrymandering is to waste as many opposing votes as possible. "My point is we're telling people that their votes don't count because the candidate they voted for already won in their state. I'm not telling people not to vote, I'm arguing that that is stupid." Sounds like the opposite of gerrymandering. He's arguing against the exact thing you accuse him of. He saying boundaries SHOULDN'T prevent people's votes from counting.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Dec 11, 2016 10:05:23 GMT -5
I didn't accuse him of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 15:41:50 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 4:30:08 GMT -5
So... as a Canadian I've started to notice people are slowly starting to dread Trump becoming President, but not on the basis of him not being progressive on social issues. Ever since Alberta's economy got hit hard for not being able to sell their oil at a competitive price the rest of Canada's economy suffered. Our economy is in shambles for the time being, NAFTA is going to be renegotiated, and the man running things here would have been perfect for the job had the US continued to support globalism.
To get a feel for Justin Trudeau, here's a clip of him at a rally or something.
0:00 - 4:25 A woman mentions how she is a single mom with 4 kids, a job that works her 75 hours a week, some pretty bad medical issues, and most notably a hydro bill that is so large she is resorting to things like Kraft dinner as a diet staple for the family.
After that Trudeau answers this... not like Trump would. His answer largely mentions how there will be a carbon tax and the government is not backing down from that, and how the Canadian government will be investing in infrastructure and stuff.
Yes, I know the title sounds very click-baity, but CBC news is one of the largest Canadian news stations out there.
Anyone here watch Shark Tank? You know Kevin O'Leary? Rumour has it that he wants to run for Prime Minister down the line... and I honestly think he has a good chance if he does.
Also Trump's inauguration is today. I've heard there's going to be organized blockades, riots, tons of security... get some popcorn going.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 20, 2017 8:03:02 GMT -5
I hear Kevin has like zero empathy, no public service experience, not interested in helping anyone but himself. I agree that he has a shot and I guess that's the world we live in now
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Jan 20, 2017 9:57:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 6:37:55 GMT -5
Dickinson's perspective is certainly valid, but would that change anything? So O'Leary is that cold, calculating, self-serving person off stage as well as on-stage- doesn't that just mean his demeanor is authentic? With elections pivoting around image more than anything that's just a bonus.
Yes, the prospect of Canada being run by a possible psychopath is as interesting as it is disturbing. The other questions are 1) can we trust him to align his interests with the country's on anything not business-related? (Probably not) and 2) can we afford not to trust him? (Because a lot of this will depend on who else is running)
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 21, 2017 10:09:01 GMT -5
I don't understand your point (2) at all. Someone like that shouldn't be in public service at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 15:54:13 GMT -5
I don't understand your point (2) at all. Someone like that shouldn't be in public service at all. Basically *2) Can we afford to vote for someone else? I'm not saying O'Leary is the ideal candidate, moreso if nobody else presents themself as a more desirable leader he's gonna just pound the crap out of everyone. It can happen.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 21, 2017 17:48:13 GMT -5
I'm still not sure I follow, sorry. I would say, and always say, that for sure we can afford to vote for somebody else. I would much prefer to see an experienced public servant at the helm of that party it's still way too damaged because of Harper tho.
I'm morbidly curious if Canadians would 'fall' for someone like Kevin tho. I think we hold our politicians to a higher standard than other places in the world but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jan 21, 2017 17:52:05 GMT -5
it's still way too damaged because of Harper tho. lolwat
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 21, 2017 17:57:31 GMT -5
Yeah, the Conservative party.
... is that not accurate ? I only live up here so what do I know
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jan 22, 2017 4:55:41 GMT -5
Yeah, the Conservative party. ... is that not accurate ? I only live up here so what do I know I'm also Canadian, but that is not an argument. I would love to hear just exactly how you think Harper's government was damaging. Economically, as I recall, we fared better than just about every nation on earth during the global economic crisis of 2008. Our GDP grew by 13.3% from 2009-2015, the highest amongst G7 nations. While I certainly don't agree with the deficit/stimulus spending, it worked. It's just a fraction compared to the deficits we are now facing under Trudeau (most of which is being sent to foreign countries). And it goes without saying that we still led the world in social liberties under Harper. The only thing that really decreased under him was the quality of healthcare, it maintained the steady decline it had before him, and will continue after him, despite his massive increases in funding towards it. Not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. I'm no fan of Harper's "Conservatives", I did not vote for them in 2015. But to claim he "damaged" the party is just factually wrong (and silly considering he helped create the party, and to date has been it's only leader). Unless you mean that the party is now "damaged" due to his absence? That last statement I could agree with, though Maxime Bernier looks promising. Though, O'Leary might gain too much momentum due to the media being obsessed with him (not dissimilar to Trump). O'Leary would be a bad pick to beat Trudeau IMO, his pro-gun-control and pro-carbon-tax stances could cause him to lose a chunk of his base unless he changes his mind. Mind you, most of that base is probably unaware that he holds those positions, and will stay willfully ignorant because of his charming appeal.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 22, 2017 10:08:56 GMT -5
The world economy was going spankingly well during Harper's tenure, I know people love to credit leaders with that but business cycles are business cycles. I'm actually not a Harper hater, I used to defend him quite a bit to my more liberal friends. I much prefer Mulroney however and was a big supporter of his.
Harper was very unpopular and I don’t think represented Canadian values well. He did great for my pocket book but at a non-monetary cost. The same way that Martin damaged the Liberals which led to great gains for the NDP and Tories, Harper's unpopularism did bad for the conservatives which still remains, until they get a strong enough leader to go against Trudeau, who is well liked and likely the new world moral authority. That's hard to displace.
Anyway I guess we'll see what happens in the next election but I would like to see a majority government for the Liberals (I'm not a wild supporter of them either) with the NDP and Bloc losing seats. My feelings towards the Tories will completely depend on who is driving that boat
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Jan 23, 2017 10:34:11 GMT -5
Being a liberal suporter, I dislike a lot of what Harper did, especially the muzzling of public servants and the very closed door lines of communication. One of the few good things I have to say about him is that his economic policies did do well in 2008, however, I think he put too much emphasis on relying on Alberta to pull the country through. I still think the Conservatives, as well as the NDP are giving the Liberals enough rope to hang themselves not necessarily for the upcoming election, but the one after that. I like Trudeau and I think things are going fine under him. As for O'Leary, he's too ruthless... he doesn't even have the curtesy to buy you dinner before he f%%ks you over. That's why he won't succeed as a politican; in politics, you have to be able to wine and dine before you screw someone over which I don't think O'Leary is capable of doing... and if he does do it, everyone will see right through it and he'll come off as phony. I do agree with blackbarney: Canada isn't the US and we do hold our politicians to a higher standard (at least, we like to think so)
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jan 25, 2017 12:50:22 GMT -5
I'm wondering, and this is an honest question - how do those on here that were supporters of Trump feel about him right now?
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Jan 25, 2017 14:53:11 GMT -5
I'm wondering, and this is an honest question - how do those on here that were supporters of Trump feel about him right now? I've been spending a lot of time talking to these people and my experience, thus far, is that the opinion is unchanged and, in general, HIGHLY defensive. I think it's too early still for them to worry or doubt. I'm really curious what happens when people realize what Trump is. When he doesn't do the things he said he was going to. When he doesn't do anything for the middle class or lower. When he puts through tax breaks for the very rich. I'm THINKING they won't blame Trump tho, because Trump won't accept accountability for not doing these things and will likely place blame on Ryan/Mitch and maybe even Reince P. And then i'm guessing his followers will buy that.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 25, 2017 18:24:41 GMT -5
I didn't vote for him, but he's already exceeded expectations by killing TPP.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Jan 26, 2017 10:31:13 GMT -5
I didn't vote for him, but he's already exceeded expectations by killing TPP. Considering Hilary was going to kill it as well, wasn't the TPP doomed no matter who was going to become president?
|
|